Hello.
Kevin Hilman wrote:
Some of the comments about my earlier EDMA patches touched on issues
in that programming interface, like:
- The single call to allocate DMA resources is overly complex.
- Its programming model doesn't match the hardware well: talking
about master vs. slave, not channels and parameter RAM; confusing
those two resource types (especially when allocating); etc.
- Since the calls used a "davinci_" prefix, they wouldn't be very
appropriate for the DMA in the OMAP-L137 chip.
We were going to move the generic part of
arch/arm/mach-davinci/dma.c (alomg with other common code b/w so
called OMAP-L1x and DaVinci) to arch/arm/plat-davinci/ but the rename
seems reasonable anyway.
I keep hearing things like this, but have not yet seen any patches, or
technical arguments for doing so.
The technical argument is simple: sharing the code for two similar
platforms, the EDMA code in particular.
The code already is shared.
How? You're not supposed to looks for the shared code in other
mach-*/ dirs, are you?
I'm talking about DaVinci git tree here, not TI/MV trees. There is
no plat-davinci, only a mach-davinci.
The current DMA code is shared across the various devices currently
supported in DaVinci git.
The point I'm trying to make is that I still do not agree with the
need to create a plat-davinci for "common" code. The reasons I've
heard so far have not been convincing.
There is one thing I found difficult to share between OMAP-L1x and
DaVinci variants. That is the RAM is map to different physical address.
For DaVinci Makefile.boot we have
zreladdr-y := 0x80008000
params_phys-y := 0x80000100
initrd_phys-y := 0x80800000
For OMAP-L1X Makefile.boot we have
zreladdr-y := 0xC0008000
params_phys-y := 0xC0000100
initrd_phys-y := 0xC0800000
Is there a clean way to consolidate the two?
These makefile variables only affect the creation of the [zu]Image
files, not the kernel image itself, which is linked at its virtual
address. My primary concern is the ability to have a single kernel
image, a single [zu]Image is nice but not mandatory.
If you want to have MUSB support in kernel you can forget your dream
of "single kernel image". :-)
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
